Recommended Posts

The view that a government any government ( or any administration for that matter) has the right of unlimited power over its citizens is called by various names, (most often referred to as republicanism, fascism, communism, totalitarianism and other particular unlimited ism’s) but it is mostly and widely referred to as statism. The difference between all these are only in their form and nature of its forced and self appointed legal absolutism over its citizens. Statism denotes an all powerful political expression of joined collectivism or more simply as a “welfare guardian” of the individual. Under both a moderate or strict statist government, an individual has no choice but to do what the state demands, no if's and’s or but’s. The most obvious and simple example of this is taxation (from here on in I will refer to as government as referring to all forms of ism’s as indicated above).

Taxation can be defined as a government practice over a city’s, town’s, state’s and/or nation’s control over a particular economic area. It’s income is a demand over its entire populace as a piece of pie out of every single paycheck. There can be no resistance and no choice or recourse. To withhold a government's entitlement is to invite danger or worse. To a government withholding of its just “deserts” is always considered a crime. But what, you may ask, is the nature of this crime? And does that mean that every person which producers (works) and therefore contributes to the sum total of a government’s income is a potential criminal? Would you be surprised if the answer was a resounding “Yes!”

The first and foremost role of government is to prevent the initiation of the use of force and to protect those who are directly threatened by such. This we can all agree. But the initiation of force is exactly what the government does by collecting taxes from a given paycheck out of every individual within its jurisdiction. The fundamental principle here is that no government should be invested with the legal right or power to the use of physical force against any individual ('s) to act contrary to their voluntary choice (s). But again it is just what the government does by initiating the coercive action of taxation. “Coercive action” can be made by threat, legal action, property expropriation, imprisonment or in extreme cases death! Refuse or resist to pay what a government “feels” is their right of a “stated amount” of your income and these things may fast become a reality. Here is where you may be criminalized even if your intent is but fundamentally disagree in what is your “fair share”. If the government says it isn’t enough, then brother you better head for the hills!

What then is the answer? You say you must pay your taxes or you may find yourself in jail, separated from your family and marked for life or worse! Not so! In a truly free society (granted our country has not yet gained this obvious objective), taxes would be paid voluntary without compulsion or coercion! No one would or could tell you what to pay or how much. What? Who would want to pay anything out of their pockets freely and to an entity or entities they may not agree with? Everyone-here’s why.

Imagine one afternoon you arrive home from a family outing and you find your home has been burglarized, you reach for your phone but there is no police to call. You stand outside watching your house burn down one afternoon but firehouses do not exist. A loved one is having a health difficulty but EMT is nowhere to be found. Your water faucet ceases to work because of a main pipe break down the road but “public works” has yet to be created. Roads are full of potholes but who will administer to their repair? These and a host of other problems will arise if no one steps up or believes in voluntary funding of necessary government administration.

But the question remains how to administer voluntary government funding in all the possible situations that can arrive in the course in a day, month or year (s)? That question can only be answered by rational individuals who see the necessity of such funding. Can we do this now, today? Yes, if we see the true nature of individuals living to further life-sustaining, and life furthering actions and take responsibility for themselves. One, therefore, should be willing (and want) to pay for an administration of public and national defense, public utility repairs and such and so on.

The final question remains how much one should voluntary pay? Immediately a second related question should be asked-how much is my life worth and am I willing to take responsibility for it? The exact amount cannot be calculated by any one person. If that was the case a person would have to spend endless hours going over budgets, manpower needs, compitent hiring practices etc. and have no time to live his life. So this question is hard to answer and at this time may not be answerable until individuals reach a point of cooperation that exceeds government coercion but one thing would be sure, if voluntary funding of government was possible then waste, low productivity, career and corrupt politicians all all the other evils that go along with today’s coercive type of taxation would cease immediately-and wouldn’t that be nice!

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I'm not sure if there's a question being asked here, but I can offer some commentary:

18 hours ago, Collectivist said:

So this question is hard to answer and at this time may not be answerable until individuals reach a point of cooperation that exceeds government coercion but one thing would be sure, if voluntary funding of government was possible then waste, low productivity, career and corrupt politicians all all the other evils that go along with today’s coercive type of taxation would cease immediately-and wouldn’t that be nice!

Nothing would change "immediately." The institutions currently in place will not suddenly cease any more than Catholicism or slavery in the South ceased to exist in spite of horrific wars intended to abolish said institutions. Whatever program(s) set forth to reduce and ultimately liberate people from government dependency could only succeed long after the people accept the expanded concept of self-governance. To expect the sudden popularization of this notion of increased personal responsibility is unrealistic, to say the least.

18 hours ago, Collectivist said:

Roads are full of potholes but who will administer to their repair? These and a host of other problems will arise if no one steps up or believes in voluntary funding of necessary government administration.

If explained properly, the answer to who will administer the maintenance of public utilities is answered in your second sentence. Politicians gladly step up to administer that function. The United States originally flourished under a mixed economy of coerced taxation and voluntary financing, and in some forms, this still exists, we still flourish, but the greater reliance on coerced taxation is unpopular and destructive. In the early years, voluntary means, such as, lotteries and government bonds covered the cost of the construction of highways and canals. I can't say with certainty as to the degree of vigilance comptroller oversight made the difference, but those projects were highly successful. One idea that would not be popular today is the idea that many of the public services we've come to rely on could be eliminated, and replaced by privately owned institutions. (A fine example is the highly controversial Affordable Healthcare law, which is a result of public mistrust of private institutions.)

An argument could be made that Americans already have a "voluntary" pay system. We voluntarily "hired" certain personalities to administer and construct finance plans to provide us with all of the security one needs from cradle to grave. The voluntary persons pandering to the masses, pleading for your vote, and promising the moon. Furthermore, I believe many if not most are quite sincere in their delusional quest to solve the problems of the world and alleviate all suffering. Whether it comes in the form of Christianity or socialism, the spirit of altruism is fundamental to every successful candidate, because the majority want to believe the problems of the world can be solved through collective action and/or the Blessings of God. We allow these shepherds of the common good to take control over their flock, because no one calls into question the very evil from whence dictatorship originates: Altruism.

While early Americans did indeed hold a voluntary sense of common good, Christian charity, an allegiance to the safety, and well-being of their neighbors, it was the crucial component of personal guidance, self-governance and self-reliance that defined Jeffersonian Democracy. Over the generations, the Jeffersonian concept of individual freedom has eroded, (and arguably for many valid reasons). Today, the individual is taught at an early age that government must take the place of one's parents upon adulthood. At the same time, we learn how corrupt our system is, and we are told that the only way to deal with it is to disregard any respect for lawful governance (in the same way we might disobey our parents or the school principle), or to "fix it" by heaping more government on top of the already festering pile of bad laws.

Voluntary organizations do work, but they must undertake only the causes that are worthy of their efforts. Otherwise, you wind up with the same self-proclaimed do-gooders that currently stagnate real progress. On the idea of voluntary taxation, consider this: The power to tax is the power to destroy. I don't believe any rational persons would volunteer to destroy themselves.

Share on other sites

The first and foremost role of government is to prevent the initiation of the use of force and to protect those who are directly threatened by such. This we can all agree.

I don't agree. And that's not how Rand defined the purpose of government. Its purpose should be to protect rights--to protect people from physical violence. It's not to prevent the initiation of the use of force. We properly delegate retaliatory, not preemptory, force to the government.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

In a wider scope, you are absolutely right, however I was using government in this case to refer to local administrations like police, EMT, and public utilities. Your right, I should have made that clearer.

Even in a 100% free economy, this decision might not be fully yours to make. Unless you are self-employed, how much you contribute to the government might be determined by someone else: your employer.

A proper government would be recognized as a critically important value. Those who are anti-contributing might be ostracized by business owners who heavily rely on protective services like the police and courts. Employers therefore might be justified in not hiring people who refuse to send a small amount of their salary to government.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

"Sending a small amount of their salary to government" isn't that just the same as "income taxation even if it's a smaller amount? As hard as it would be to implement, no amount should come out of your paycheck every week if so wouldn't that imply that the government still holds a gun to our head?

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

"Sending a small amount of their salary to government" isn't that just the same as "income taxation even if it's a smaller amount? As hard as it would be to implement, no amount should come out of your paycheck every week if so wouldn't that imply that the government still holds a gun to our head?

No, it would be part of your employment contract. For example, the company might say here is how much we'll pay you ($100k/year), and here is how much we'll send to the government on your behalf ($10k/year). If you don't like it, you could negotiate or try another company. It's not compulsory taxation. Nobody is going to throw you in prison for not paying. If you complain, though, you might not get that particular job.

My point is that you shouldn't assume that in a free economy your particular paycheck fantasy will reign supreme. People will still have values. They will still want to employ people with similar values. The nature and purpose of contracts will still exist. And governments will still enforce legal agreements. So be prepared to trade value for value. If you need a job, and the person offering a job requires you to help finance the government. Then you'll have to take it or leave it. It's the same principle that applies when an employer requires you to wear a particular uniform during work hours. He has the right to negotiate the terms under which he will employ you.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

How about this. Everyone will finnance government services by paying a 1~3% voluntary contribution on purchases of goods and services. No state tax (the government collects all the contributions and would distribute it to the states on an equal basis). Your choice in the matter is like at Wal-Mart when they ask do you want to contribute the charity of the moment. You can say "No" so it would not be automatic. This way it would not be called a "fair tax" but a "voluntary tax" 33 million citizens (give or take) paying 1~3 % would be enough to finnance any government. In times of emergency Congress would be able to raise the rate (with a time limit) to meet budget necessities for that particular emergency.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Those who are anti-contributing might be ostracized by business owners.

Politics and government doesn't exist in a vacuum, it's a consequence of the culture of a nation. So, what we need to ask ourselves, what would a culture that produces a capitalist government look like?

For instance, with the initiation of force no longer an option, would people (especially the leaders of corporations) feel the need to impose their beliefs on others through economic means? Or would they be more accepting of differing opinions? Would a business owner be more or less likely to employ someone who doesn't believe in what the government is doing, and therefor refuses to fund it?

On a more fundamental level, would the employer-employee relationship be regarded more as a contract with a scope limited to a specific kind of cooperation (towards the goal of producing a specific value), than it is today? Or would it be viewed even more as this family like relationship that imposes all sorts of responsibilities on the two sides, beyond just the explicitly stated business transaction?

Link to post

Share on other sites

Everyone will finnance government services by paying a 1~3% voluntary contribution on purchases of goods and services.

Sure, that's another way to do it, as long as the business is free to not collect contributions from customers, if they don't want to--or if they want to donate another way. My guess is that some basic, transparent gambling system, like the current state lotteries, would ultimately finance the entire government. Maybe employers partly pay employees in government lottery tickets, or offer tickets to customers as partial change. It would depend on market forces, of course. If the chance at winning a jackpot attracts more customers than other systems, then I could see the lotteries becoming the main source of revenue for government agencies.

Link to post

Share on other sites

Would a business owner be more or less likely to employ someone who doesn't believe in what the government is doing, and therefor refuses to fund it?

It would depend on the particular owner's values. If he runs a communist think tank devoted to overturning capitalism, then he's probably looking for employees who don't believe in what the government is doing. Logically there should be only a small number of such anti-capitalist employers in a society that supports a free economy. But what about those with lesser grievances? Maybe a large minority of the population disagrees with a particular military action overseas, and so they protest by withholding contributions. This might be the only way to resolve the debate, if the free society were so deeply divided.